Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Charles A. Boyle , 368 Wis. 2d 590 ( 2016 )

2016 WI 40
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2015AP2100-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Charles A. Boyle, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Charles A. Boyle,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOYLE
OPINION FILED: May 18, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 40
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2015AP2100-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Charles A. Boyle, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAY 18, 2016
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Charles A. Boyle,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
and Attorney Charles A. Boyle have filed a stipulation pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Boyle's license
to practice law in this state should be suspended for a period
of 60 days, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of Illinois. After reviewing this matter, we
approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal
No. 2015AP2100-D
discipline. The OLR does not seek costs, and we do not impose
any.
¶2 Attorney Boyle was admitted to the practice of law in
Illinois in November 1966. He was also admitted to the practice
of law in Wisconsin in June 1985. He maintains a law practice
in the city of Chicago.
¶3 Attorney Boyle has been the subject of professional
discipline on one prior occasion. In 2015 this court publicly
reprimanded him for five counts of misconduct that arose from
(1) filing documents and appearing in a Racine County circuit
court while his license to practice law in this state was
administratively suspended; (2) making false or misleading
statements to the circuit court, the clerk of the circuit court,
and the OLR; and (3) violating the Attorney's Oath by failing to
maintain proper respect to the circuit court. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boyle, 2015 WI 90, 364 Wis. 2d
544, 869 N.W.2d 475.
¶4 On October 20, 2015, the OLR filed a two-count
complaint. Count I alleged that Attorney Boyle should be subject
to reciprocal discipline due to the imposition of a 60-day
suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Count II
alleged that Attorney Boyle had failed to notify the OLR of his
2
No. 2015AP2100-D
suspension in a timely manner, in violation of SCR 22.22(1).1 On
December 11, 2015, after the OLR's complaint had been served on
Attorney Boyle but before any referee had been appointed,
Attorney Boyle entered into a stipulation with the OLR whereby
he agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint
supported the imposition of a 60-day suspension of his license
to practice law in Wisconsin, as reciprocal discipline.
¶5 According to the factual allegations in the OLR's
complaint and the Illinois disciplinary records attached
thereto, in 2012 Attorney Boyle agreed to retain $2,000 in
settlement proceeds in his client trust account, pending a
determination of whether any of those funds would be payable to
Medicare. Attorney Boyle subsequently transferred $1,949.62 of
those funds from his client trust account into his business
account for his own business or personal purposes. After the
client asked the Illinois regulatory authorities to investigate,
Attorney Boyle contacted Medicare to inquire whether Medicare
would be making a claim on any of those funds. Medicare did not
seek payment of any of the funds, and Attorney Boyle paid the
$2,000 to the client. Attorney Boyle consented that his conduct
had constituted conversion of the client's funds, in violation
1
SCR 22.22(1) provides: "An attorney on whom public
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall
promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish
the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or
judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct."
3
No. 2015AP2100-D
of Rule 1.15(a) (failure to hold client property in trust,
separate from the lawyer's own property) and Rule 8.4(c)
(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010).2 Based on Attorney Boyle's consent, the Supreme Court of
Illinois suspended his license to practice in that state for a
period of 60 days.
¶6 Under SCR 22.22(3),3 this court shall impose the
identical discipline or license suspension imposed in another
jurisdiction, unless one or more of three exceptions apply. In
2
In the petition for the imposition of consensual
discipline, the administrator of the Illinois attorney
regulatory agency indicated that Attorney Boyle had not been
previously disciplined in that state, that he had made
restitution of the funds to the client, that he had cooperated
throughout the investigation and prosecution of the matter, and
that he had expressed remorse for his conduct.
3
SCR 22.22(3) provides:
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
4
No. 2015AP2100-D
his stipulation with the OLR, Attorney Boyle states that he does
not claim that any exception applies to his case. He agrees
that this court should suspend his license to practice law in
Wisconsin for a period of 60 days, as reciprocal discipline.
¶7 In the stipulation, Attorney Boyle further represents
that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining, that
he fully understands and agrees with the misconduct allegations
made in the OLR's complaint, that he fully understands the
ramifications of the stipulated level of discipline, that he
fully understands his right to consult with counsel and his
right to contest the allegations against him, that he is
entering into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and
that the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the
level and type of discipline sought by the OLR.
¶8 After reviewing this matter, we accept the stipulation
and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Supreme Court
of Illinois, namely a 60-day suspension of Attorney Boyle's
license to practice law in this state. Because this matter has
been resolved by stipulation without the appointment of a
referee and the OLR has not requested any costs, we do not
impose any costs on Attorney Boyle.
¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Charles A. Boyle to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days,
effective May 31, 2016.
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles A. Boyle shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
5
No. 2015AP2100-D
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.28(2).
6
No. 2015AP2100-D
1